About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CSPAN 10
MSNBCW 5
CSPAN2 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un
, the deficit reduction first. you have to pay the bills. in your personal and public life -- you want to have a prescription drug benefits under medicare, that is great, you have to pay for it. you want two wars? you have to pay for them, too. we should understand something about the republican party over the last and years. it has been a big spending party -- it just does not want to pay for any of the spending. a reset of traditional conservatism requires that we be reality-based on the fiscal condition of the country and understand that the years of profligacy now require increased revenue. the notion that we have hundreds of members of congress bound by a pledge to grover norquist as opposed to their oath of office to the constitution -- [applause] is unsettling. we should understand, there is not symmetry between the parties on this question. there is no grover norquist equivalent in the democratic party on this question. it is encouraging to hear speaker boehner and republicans talk about the need to increase revenues. my personal opinion, which is why i am a republican in part, a 40% f
reduce the deficit. it doesn't make a lot of sense to get rid of a deficit reduction program, as part of a deficit reduction deal. the white house already rejected boehner's idea. obama care will not be part of debt negotiations. boehner is up to something here, don't you think? something else, that is. if you watch john boehner closely over the last two weeks, you can see him laying the ground work for the latest ploy. he call eed obama care the law the land, but also tried to link it to obama care and the budget. >> you had said, next year, that you would repeal the health care vote. that's still your mission? >> well, i think the election changes that. it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected. obama care is the law of the land. i think there are parts of the health care law that are going to be very difficult to implement. and very expensive. and at a time where we're trying to find a way to create a toward a balanced budget, everything has to be on the table. >> but you won't be spending the time next year, trying to repeal obama care? >> there are certainly may be part
. it is still about three times the average deficit under bush. let us go back to the clinton tax era. eileen anywhere between republican and libertarian. up -- yes i am not. i lean anywhere between republican and a libertarian. host: what do you make of republicans up on capitol hill -- to sort of a back off the tax pledge that he took when he ran for senate, saying he would not raise taxes. caller: if we are going to raise taxes my important thing is raising them on everybody. because if they try to strike a compromise where only the rich get taxed, then it gets more progressive. it is not a point to help the budget. we are right to raise taxes, raise them all the way down to where clinton had them. host: senators lindsey gramm represented peter king, talking publicly abandoning the pledge of democrats will talk seriously about entitlement reforms. rest in peace, grover norquist? there are not enough republican tax hikes -- republicans to hike taxes for obama. the left is doing its best to make tax hikes appear to be a foregone conclusion. that is their take on tax hikes. eddie, on our line
rate will necessarily go up. we talk about debt and deficit in this chamber, if we remember less than 12 years ago, 12 years ago we hit a budgetary surplus of $258 billion. meaning that we were taking in $258 billion more in each year than we were spending. how was that possible? it was made possible by having created 22 million private sector jobs in the previous eight years. . what was the policy then? the policy was to invest in the american economy, in the american people, in education, in scientific research, and infrastructure. so i think the lessons from our most recent past are very instructive today as to what we should be doing in washington to promote growth. the gentleman from california spoke of a plan i was working on, that's a $1.2 trillion investment in rebuilding the roads and bridges of america. that plan, advanced by the new america foundation, would create 27 million private sector jobs in five years. the first year alone, over five million jobs which would reduce the current employment rate from where it is today to 6.4% and in the second year, 5.2%. now public in
it into the unified budget to mass of the overall deficit. the trust fund will run -- to mask the overall deficit. it was a nice tax breaks for low income seniors. that was stealing from that trust fund. we call it the social security fund. there is no trust in my estimation. host: this is from the huffy to post a business section. earlier this week-- huffington post business section. older americans are in the cross hairs. when congress returns for a lame-duck session, stocks will keep up -- talks will heat up and there may be reinvigorated discussions on a grand bargain. the last time that happens, president obama considered a proposal favored by republicans to extend the eligibility for medicare to 67. as a guy who turned 65, your thoughts about extending the eligibility for medicaid to 67. guest: if you are younger, you are not thinking about it. i think it would be prudent to do that for the health of the country in the future of the people. obviously, if you are at or near 65, you cannot do it. the thing i wonder is, as part of this whole situation, why is there no effort to really, really
is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit, which peaked in 2009, is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. however, the cbo projects that under a possible such a policy assumptions the deficit could still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover, under the protection, the deficit and the ratio of federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never accept underpass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. a credible framework to set a better fiscal policy, one in which the ratio of federal debt to gdp eventually stabilizes or declines, is urgently needed to maintain stability. even as policy-makers address the urgent issue of longer run out stability, they should not ignore a second key objective, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the head winds that are already holding back the economic recovery
is on an unsustainable path. the budget deficit, which peaked 2009, is expected to narrow further in the coming years as the economy continues to recover. however, the cbo projects that under a possible such a policy assumptions the deficit could still be greater than 4% of gdp in 2018, assuming the economy has returned to its potential by then. moreover, under the protection, the deficit and the ratio of federal debt to gdp would subsequently returned to an upward trend. we should all understand that long-term projections of ever increasing deficits will never accept underpass because the willingness of lenders to continue to fund the government can only be sustained by a responsible fiscal plans and actions. a credible framework to set a better fiscal policy, one in which the ratio of federal debt to gdp aventurine stabilizes or declines, is urgently needed -- and eventually stabilize or declined, is urgently needed to maintain stability. even as policy-makers address the urgent issue of longer run out stability, they should not ignore a second key objective, to avoid unnecessarily adding to the he
to the federal deficit. cutting it doesn't change the deficit or debt picture. a year or two of extra work, think progress writes may not seem like much with his cushy corner office. for a factory worker or janitor it can be real problems. life expectancy is longer. >> you can't afford a little hike in your taxes? really? >> stephanie: no. >> can i make a request? can we take justin on line one? i want to hear this. >> stephanie: okay. justin in huntington beach. you're on "the stephanie miller show." hi justin. >> caller: hey, guys, how you doing? i don't know if this makes me the world's best father or the world's worst father because my son and i basically raised him watching your show. so but what's really funny is every time he hears reince priebus, he says reince priebus. it doesn't matter whether it is on the radio or in the car. it is pretty hysterical. >> reince priebus. >> stephanie: i'm sorry. do it again justin. >> really loud. reince priebus. [ laughter ] >> stephanie: what's his name? >> his name is
consumption. also look at the fact that walmart has generated trade deficits. when you look at this -- this blew my mind. this is the size that walmart has in our economy. the walmart trade deficits with china eliminated nearly 200,000 u.s. jobs between '01 and 2006. just walmart's decision, right. just that. so on the one hand, like yes, you've got this issue of how these supply chains are connected. but it feels like how else do you lift yourself out of that sort of thing? it's not just sort of what's good in a moral or a ethical sense. there's an economic what good is going on. >> the giant corporations do live in this bubble. the bubble where it's okay to do what they do mord to make more profits or to give bonuses or whatever. i'm not anti- -- in any sort of way. really just understanding that they believe that the hourly workers are super transient. okay, you want to leave. we'll get somebody else. all these people are happy. these people are are are cogs in that wheel. i think what you're doing and the fact that we're discussing this and adding pressure to them in tha
as congress returned to work. lawmakers are under pressure to strike a deficit deal, preventing the tax hikes and deep spending cuts. wall street's week got off to an uncertain start, partly over concerns that strong holiday sales won't last. the dow jones industrial average lost 42 points to close at 12,967. the nasdaq managed about a ten- point gain to close at 2976. the woman who helped steer the government's regulatory response to the 2008 financial crisis is stepping down. mary schapiro announced today she's resigning as chair of the securities and exchange commission after nearly four years. president obama has designated s.e.c. commissioner elisse walter to replace schapiro, effective december 14. in bangladesh, thousands of people protested today over a deadly fire at a factory that makes garments for american and other companies. at least 112 people died in the saturday night blaze on the outskirts of dhaka, the country's capital. today, crowds of textile workers demanded justice and improved conditions. they accused management of putting production quotas ahead of people's lives. .
of leverage, or did this restrain american options in terms of what you can do? >> with respect to the deficit and debt of the national security liability, we need our senior leadership and the ability to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, we have a requirement to do so. the requirement and foundation of national power is ultimately economic in terms of global influence. and in terms of supporting the military. we have, i think, members of the house will step up in the coming months. >> how did you look at your surplus of the united states? do they say that we have america under control because of the treasury? >> superposition to the united states is very important. it is very decisive. so there is no intention for us with this economic relationship. >> i'm going to open it up to the floor. we have four microphones around the room. josh grogan is over here. >> thank you very much, and thank you for your time today. i figure we can all agree that the number one issue of the risk of conflict with china is a large part of u.s. strategy encouraging this is to urge china to have a bette
officers, and teachers. and we're going to pay for that. no more deficit spending. we'll pay for it by having a surtax on people who make more than $1 million a year. and that surtax is .3%. they stopped it. they stopped it dead in its tracks. every republican voted against that. that is the way that they have legislated this entire year. and by our getting rid of the motion to proceed, that we're turning country upside-down is ridiculous. it's not true. they have legislated with the effort to defeat obama. he won. he won by 2 1/2 million votes, 325 -- 327 electoral votes, overwhelming. even though they did everything they could to stop him from being reelected. everyone knows what a failure this congress has been because of what the senate has done and that's nothing. nothing. no job creation. they didn't want that. it would -- if -- if we had had some ability to create jobs, it would have helped obama, it would have helped the country. but, no, that wasn't what they wanted to do. and a terrible day for them last year was the -- several months ago, the supreme court -- can y
we can solve our long-term debt and deficit problem is to fix the unsustainable growth rates of our very popular entitlement programs. the president has indicated an openness to that and now's the time to actually do it. and i hope we can put all this divisiveness behind us and build the confidence and relationships on a bipartisan basis, which would help us get there here at the end of the year. >> the president and leader reid said social security should be off the table. what's your reaction to that? >> all of the entitlements need to be discussed, because they all to one degree or another are on an unsustainable path. medicare is in more immediate danger. we want to save these programs and i understand the dilemma that the president and the majority leader have. they don't want to change anything. they think any commitment made by the federal government on any program at any time ought to be there forever. well, times change. and until we make sure these popular entitlement programs fit the demographics of the changing america, we can't save them. we all know that. it's simple m
we need other than taxing the rich? >> we need a framework so you can look and see the deficit is coming down to near zero. that's what we need. >> where do we get the money on the spending side? >> well, first, on the taxes in addition to raising the tax rates, what we're going to start hearing much more about is the unbelievable tax gimmicks. i just want to say, but, joe, one thing about that, if i could. >> where is the spending coming from? >> i want to say one thing about that that's funny. go google and some of our other biggest companies have been hiding profits for years from the irs. with the irs' approval, putting it in bermuda and so forth. now europe is saying, because they use european con duets, okay, we'll tax that. no, that's money that should be taxed by the united states. stow if we continue our gimmicks we're going to lose it to europeans. >> so we have to raise rates and we have to cut loopholes. what about on the spending side? where do we get the money there? >> we're going to have to get defense under control and spend these wasteful wars have added trill
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)